tripo_uv

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations at all, the description carries the burden well by disclosing quota economics (generate consumes uv_edit quota, retries 1-3 free), the auto-apply default, and the model-complexity gate. It stops short of describing failure modes, auth, or how to poll the async result.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Dense but front-loaded, with the workflow stated first and the constraint last. The arrow notation (uv_edit/context → generate/retry → apply) is efficient but somewhat cryptic and assumes familiarity with internal tool/state naming.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the workflow, quota rules, apply default, and a size precondition. Missing only return-value expectations and how long-running generation is tracked, which keeps it from a 5.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is already 75%, covering apply, candidate_id, and wait_seconds. The description reinforces the candidate-application path but adds no syntax or semantics for wait_seconds and never explicitly maps to the apply boolean, so it barely exceeds the schema baseline.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific action (UV unwrap) and frames the whole generate/retry/apply workflow in one line. It distinguishes itself from tripo_remesh by naming it as the prerequisite for oversized models, though it does not clarify its relationship to adjacent siblings like tripo_texture or tripo_pbr.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly encodes the decision logic: use generate on first run (costs quota), retry within the same context for the first 3 free attempts, or skip straight to apply when a candidate exists with next_action=apply. It also gives a hard precondition — remesh first if the model exceeds 80k tris / 40k quads.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.